Talked with some friends, this seemed obvious to me but they thought I was wrong, if the powers that be finish cracking the signing code (as SSA? was jsut partially hacked) and we could sign our own programs, and the xbox 2 was backwards compatable, wouldnt' we be able to run such programs as XBMC and emulators? Seems like if a sign works for xbox 1 and xbox 2 can read xbox 1 signed code, if we could sign our own code the 360 would read and run it.
Thoughts on Backwards Compatability
- Thread starter silentdarkfalcon
- Start date
i dont think that should be a problem, playtstation 2 reads playstation 1 games. So i dont see why microsoft would be stupid enough to not do that in their consoles. I think its very likely but might be a big of a job.
Team X said the kernel already supports it, maybe they're holding back for jsut this reason. Whether or not they want the 360 to have it is still a source of debate.
i read that the lower price range xbox 360 was not backwards compatable, but it didnt state if the other one was, anyone read something different.
But backwards compatability makes the overall console perfomance suffer... just take the janky PS2 for example. (Besides the fact that it doesn't even have a full 500mHz clock speed under it's "hood", too.)desolate_one said:
well if they can make the xbox360 perform at its finest while being able to play xbox1 games, then fine. If it makes it perform worse then hell no. I have a xbox1 to play games no need to have the xbox360 play them
That makes me pretty mad... I've read the same thing as well. This is Microsoft screwing their customers AGAIN. "Hey, it has the capability to be backwards compatible... but lets take that ability away and put it back in a more expensive model!" That's EXACTLY what they did with Windows XP: you know the so-called "Pro" version? Well, orginally, they were ALL Pro versions... but to make a few bucks, they removed the things that would be needed in a large office environment, and called that version "Home." They called the original version, "Pro," and put them back in, and slapped on a extra $100-150 on the price tag... makes me furious!badazz74 said:
Yes, I know they need swap space. However, I'm sure they could come up with a way to play original games w/o needing to purchase the HDD, yet they did it this way to encourage buyers to get the expensive one! ARGH! *&#*$^^# #&$#*$ #*&#!
That company needs to die... I encourage everyone to buy the Playstation 3 or Nintendo Revolution (or whatever it's gonna be called). Microsoft is an evil company that needs to get a lot smaller and loose market share, so it becomes competitive again.
Sigh... first off, I wouldn't call the PS2, "janky." But I guess that's personal opinion. However, I don't want to turn this into another spec forum, but I just have to say this:Negative Creep said:
Clock speeds do not matter! (This is mentioned in every PS2 emulation thread.) It's how much work gets done on each, "rotation." The PS2 processor, although overall very marginally slower then the XBox, is not a piece of crap. It gets a lot more work done with each, "rotation." It's a very efficient machine by comparison. The 733mhz processor in the XBox is really not a lot better then the 333mhz processor in the Playstation. Americans have always been far more wasteful then the Japanese... and I'm allowed to say that because I'm American. So, in conclusion, the fact that it has weaker specs really doesn't matter, because it can use them better, due to specialized chips.
- Greg
Perhaps this is a feature that can be accessed once the new console is successfully hacked. If the capability is there in the low end console, I'm sure somebody will figure out a way to access it once the box is modded. Just take a look at the home brew DVD player software for Xbox. No need to buy the DVD playback kit ..... just get a mod chip and you're all set !linuxn00b2004 said:
I agree with your Microsoft frustrations however. Once I get a good complete picture of this new console, then I'll decide which system to support in the future. One thing's for sure .... if they remove system link and force you to use their online service, they will surely lose me as a customer !Well, clock speeds DO matter .... but they aren't the only thing, as you pointed out. A good benchmark looks at a variety of things. Any single measurement such as clock speed, MIPS or FLOPS really doesn't give you the whole picture. For example, one machine my have a lower MIPS but with a much more complicated instruction set.linuxn00b2004 said:
i agree with him why need backwords combatability when most of us have more than one xbox it makes no sence in the long run it will end up like ps2 where no one uses ps1 games on it and eb and gamestop have so many ps1 games that they dont know what to do wit them my cousin works at eb and says that practicly the whole backroom is filled gameboy color and ps1 games and more recently gba advanced games like b4 it would be 4 the besttobb555 said:
how does backwards compatibility make performance suffer? explain how something that isnt running until it needs to be makes something suffer?Negative Creep said:But backwards compatability makes the overall console perfomance suffer... just take the janky PS2 for example. (Besides the fact that it doesn't even have a full 500mHz clock speed under it's "hood", too.)
I dunno... I read that information somewhere. I've heard that additional system resources are used up when (say for instance) you run a PS1 game on a PS2... it's almost like having to run an emulator to play the older games on the newer system.rh387 said:
And for the record, I wasn't trying to "rip" into the PS2 by saying it was janky... I was trying to explain things, but sometimes that can be tough when having to type it out for others to read. And for that, I apologize...
Some thoughts...
Newer systems have newer instruction sets. Most new instruction sets combine or replace old instructions so if you want to run last generation games you either have to:
1- include the entire old instuction set into the new architecture, or
2- include an emulator to translate the old instructions into ones the new architecture can recognize.
Including the old instructions is probably the easiest and most cost efficient way for a company to provide backwards compatibility because they don't have to create anything new; they just make sure the old instructions are in the ISA. The problem with this method is that it increases the size of the ISA which, depending on the method of decoding, can either increase logical circuitry and therefore the complexity of a CPU, or increase instruction decoding time (negligible increase in the short run, but over time really begins to add up) wherein performance overall takes a hit.
Creating an "emulator" for a system as complex as the Xbox would be a daunting challenge to say the least. Programmers would have to translate every old instruction into instructions that the new architecture would be able to decode... if such a translation is even possible. An example of this complexity can be seen in the fact that it takes three separate N64 emulators just to get the collection of N64 games to run on the Xbox (even then there are still problems in the translation process) and that was from a platform two generations back (granted the process would be easier here since it could be developed in-house). In the long run this is the least feasable option as it requires countless man hours redeveloping an already existent technology.
The real issue of backwards compatibility is really only a factor for the first few months after launch until the system has a good foundation of titles to rely on. For example, when I first got my PS2 I was very excited that I would be able to play my favorite PS1 games on it, but as my PS2 game collection increased I spent less and less time playing PS1 games to the point where I hardly ever play them (and when I do it's only for an hour or two, just to wax nostalgic) and backwards compatibility isn't even an issue anymore. From a purely business standpoint including backwards compatibility could minorly increase sales in the short run (mostly at launch) but it would have negligible effect in the long run.
Newer systems have newer instruction sets. Most new instruction sets combine or replace old instructions so if you want to run last generation games you either have to:
1- include the entire old instuction set into the new architecture, or
2- include an emulator to translate the old instructions into ones the new architecture can recognize.
Including the old instructions is probably the easiest and most cost efficient way for a company to provide backwards compatibility because they don't have to create anything new; they just make sure the old instructions are in the ISA. The problem with this method is that it increases the size of the ISA which, depending on the method of decoding, can either increase logical circuitry and therefore the complexity of a CPU, or increase instruction decoding time (negligible increase in the short run, but over time really begins to add up) wherein performance overall takes a hit.
Creating an "emulator" for a system as complex as the Xbox would be a daunting challenge to say the least. Programmers would have to translate every old instruction into instructions that the new architecture would be able to decode... if such a translation is even possible. An example of this complexity can be seen in the fact that it takes three separate N64 emulators just to get the collection of N64 games to run on the Xbox (even then there are still problems in the translation process) and that was from a platform two generations back (granted the process would be easier here since it could be developed in-house). In the long run this is the least feasable option as it requires countless man hours redeveloping an already existent technology.
The real issue of backwards compatibility is really only a factor for the first few months after launch until the system has a good foundation of titles to rely on. For example, when I first got my PS2 I was very excited that I would be able to play my favorite PS1 games on it, but as my PS2 game collection increased I spent less and less time playing PS1 games to the point where I hardly ever play them (and when I do it's only for an hour or two, just to wax nostalgic) and backwards compatibility isn't even an issue anymore. From a purely business standpoint including backwards compatibility could minorly increase sales in the short run (mostly at launch) but it would have negligible effect in the long run.
Last edited:
Here is a very interesting view on the possibility of backwards compatibility:
http://www.hardgeus.com/index.php?ndailyupdateid=604
Just in case anyone is still interested.
http://www.hardgeus.com/index.php?ndailyupdateid=604
Just in case anyone is still interested.